Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Ki Savo

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand observed that the parsha begins with the Mitzva of bringing Bikkurim - the first fruits - to the Beis HaMikdash. The Gemara discusses the parade of these fruits was they were brought up from the countryside and the encouragement to those who brought them. Once the farmer has arrived at the Beis HaMikdash he would recite the Mikra Bikkurim which is found in Devarim 26:5-10. 

R' Frand quoted the Mishna in Bikkurim 3:7 which states that originally, those people who were able to read the Mikra Bikkurim would do so and those who could not were assisted by the Kohain. However, people who did not know how to read began to refrain to bring their fruits and it was enacted that everyone would be assisted by the Kohain. 

However the next Mishna in Bikkurim seems to contrast with this concept. In Bikkurim 3:8, the Mishna explains that the wealthy people brought their fruits in gold and silver baskets, while the indigent would bring theirs in baskets made from woven palm branches. The Gemara adds that the wealthy people would have their baskets returned to them while the palm baskets were retained by the Kohain.

R' Isaac Bernstein asked the now obvious question - why did they not enact that everyone use the same basket so that there would be no embarrassment? He answers that not being literate is something to be embarrassed about, as everyone should be able to read and the learn the Torah. However, not being as wealthy as someone else is not a reason to be embarrassed and no enactment was required.

R' Frand said a second vort related to the Tochacha. Within these curses, the Torah states in Devarim 28:47 that they come about תַּ֗חַת אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹא־עָבַ֙דְתָּ֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ בְּשִׂמְחָ֖ה וּבְט֣וּב לֵבָ֑ב מֵרֹ֖ב כֹּֽל. This is commonly translated as the curses come because a person did not serve Hashem with happiness and a full heart. 

But why should someone receive curses simply because he was not happy when he was performing Mitzvos. After all, he did go to Shacharis, or shook a Lulav, or separated Tithes. R' Frand quoted the Meshech Chachma who explains that you need to put a semi colon in the pasuk and read it as תַּ֗חַת אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹא־עָבַ֙דְתָּ֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ; בְּשִׂמְחָ֖ה וּבְט֣וּב לֵבָ֑ב מֵרֹ֖ב כֹּֽל - because you did not serve Hashem your G-d, as you were more interested in accumulating wealth and that's what made you happy. R' Frand said that its natural that a person is happy about things that he does. But if a person has no happiness in doing Mitzvos, he will find happiness in physical things. Thus the curses come because a person only had pleasure when he was accumulating wealth and as a result, he did not do Mitzvos.

R' Frand also said a vort about Rosh Hashanah which had some similarities to the second parsha vort. He observed that we blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah as the Torah calls it a Yom Teruah, but the laws of how the Shofar is blown are derived from Yoveil. 

R' Frand quoted the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva which writes that while the Mitzva of Shofar is learned from the Pesukim, it is hinted to based on a different pasuk in Nach which teaches that the Shofar is intended to wake us up from slumber and to do Teshuva. This is because people forget what is Emes and they spend their lives in nothingness.

R' Frand observed that when we hear Shofar we are not sleeping, but a person can be sleeping while they are wide awake. This is because we are so involved in what occupies our lives, we are spiritually sleeping and this is the alarm clock of Shofar.

R' Frand then quoted the Gemara in Rosh Hashana which discusses the laws of Shofar and its connection with Yom Kippur of Yoveil.  The Shofar is blown on Yom Kippur of Yoveil when the Jewish slaves are freed and the ancestral lands are returned. R' Frand then quoted R' Emanuel Bernstein who asked - if Shofar is Teshuva, why are the laws learned from the financial rules of Yoveil? He answers that Yoveil is also a wake up call. A person can live on property 30-40 years and think this is mine. He sees the Eved Ivri who has been part of the household for 30 years and think - he belongs to me. Yoveil comes and tells the owner - you think the Eved or the land is yours? Its mine - you need to wake up and realize that they are Mine as the Torah states in Vayikra 25:23 - וְהָאָ֗רֶץ לֹ֤א תִמָּכֵר֙ לִצְמִתֻ֔ת כִּי־לִ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ and 25:55 - כִּֽי־לִ֤י בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ עֲבָדִ֔ים עֲבָדַ֣י הֵ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵ֥אתִי אוֹתָ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם. This is the connection between the Shofar of Rosh Hashanah and Yoveil - you need to wake up from your slumber, even if you are wide awake.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Friday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Ki Tzeitsei

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha last evening. [As we were in Los Angeles for a simcha last evening, I did not an opportunity to view the shiur live and only was able to watch it on Friday]. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand began the vort by noting that the parsha contains the "interesting" topic of בֵּ֚ן סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֔ה - the "wayward and defiant son" who after stealing from his parents to buy meat and wine multiple times is executed before he can come to rob and kill strangers. R' Frand quoted the Rabbeinu B'Chaye who writes that the בֵּ֚ן סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֔ה never occurred. This opinion is also found in the Gemara, which then asks, why is the concept written in the Chumash? The Gemara answers that it is written דרוש וקבל שכר.

But why specifically do we need this topic to be taught for the purposes of דרוש וקבל שכר? Why not teach some other subject? The Rabbeinu B'Chaye answers that דרוש וקבל שכר is applicable because it teaches lessons in Ahavas Hashem - because if a person is willing to bring their child to Beis Din, it shows how much he loves Hashem. It is well known that the greatest love is the love of a parent for their child. The lesson here is that one's love of Hashem has to be even greater. This is what it means by דרוש וקבל שכר - look at the parsha and learn out its implications. 

We have a well known example in Avraham Avinu. Avraham wanted a child for many years and after being blessed with Yitzchak he loved him greatly. Yet, when Hashem ordered Avraham to sacrifice Yitzchak at the Akeidah, he did not hesitate. The Rabbeinu B'Chaye says that this is why Avraham is referred to as Avraham Ohavi - Avraham My beloved.

R' Frand also quoted R' Shimshon Refael Hirsch who also learns the concept of דרוש וקבל שכר from this parsha - but he uses it to learn about raising children. R' Hirsch observes that a son can only be a בֵּ֚ן סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֔ה from the age of 13 to 13 and a half. Until he is 13, he does not have a Yetzer HaTov, only a Yetzer Hara. Upon reaching 13 he gets a Yetzer HaTov he gains a Yetzer HaTov and there is a battle within him. A parent could theoretically sit back and allow the child to sow his wild oats, but the lesson of the the בֵּ֚ן סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֔ה is that the parent needs to set guidelines now. 

R' Hirsch also notes that the Gemara in Sanhedrin says that the parents have to be parallel in Kol and Maareh for a child to be a בֵּ֚ן סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֔ה. This does not mean that the parents both have to look the same or have the same pitch in their voices. It means that the parents need to have the same approach to parenting - they need to discuss how to handle certain situations amongst themselves and then deal with the child. If the parents do not approach problems the same way, its not the child's fault that he became a בֵּ֚ן סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֔ה, because he is confused.

It should be noted that after the Gemara states that there never was a בֵּ֚ן סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֔ה, R' Yochanan says that there was a בֵּ֚ן סוֹרֵ֣ר וּמוֹרֶ֔ה. The Rabbeinu B'Chaye asks - how can he argue? He answers either that R' Yochanan was an Amora and he could argue. In the alternative, it could be that there was a similar situation - there was a child that who stole from his parents and when they ran out of money he stole from others and wound up killing. The Chasam Sofer explains that when R' Yochanan says - I sat on his grave, he meant that I saw this child steal from his parents. And then I saw this child grow up and as an adult, that man stole and killed and wound up killing. I sat on his grave - the grave of a person who got into bad habits and wound up killing before he killed. The scenario may not have actually happened, but the scenario does happen, like Avshalom.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Shoftim

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Devarim 20, the Torah discusses several laws relating to going out to battle. Among these laws are the exemptions which allow certain potential soldiers to avoid going to battle. One of the exemptions is found in Devarim 20:8, which states that the solders are told מִי־הָאִ֤ישׁ הַיָּרֵא֙ וְרַ֣ךְ הַלֵּבָ֔ב יֵלֵ֖ךְ וְיָשֹׁ֣ב לְבֵית֑וֹ וְלֹ֥א יִמַּ֛ס אֶת־לְבַ֥ב אֶחָ֖יו כִּלְבָבֽוֹ - who is the man who is fearful and faint hearted, let him go and return to his house so that he will not melt the hearts of his brothers like his heart.

The Gemara in Sotah seeks to define why the man is fearful. R' Akiva states that he is simply afraid of war. But R' Yossi HaGlili states that the man is afraid because he has sinned. The Gemara adds that even if the man's fear is only related to violations of Mitzvos D'Rabbanan, even speaking between putting on his Tefillin Shel Yad and Shel Rosh is enough of a reason to allow him to avoid a Milchemes Reshus.

R' Frand quoted the Tolner Rebbi in the Sefer Hemah Yinachamuni who asks -why is the example of a D'Rabbanan commandment speaking between putting on Tefillin. R' Frand mused that a Bar Mitzvah boy is told when he is learning to put on Tefillin that he should not speak between placing the hand and head Tefillin, and R' Frand guesses that from the time he is 13 until he is 83, he probably does not violate this rule.

The Tolner Rebbi explains that the reference is to the disconnect between Man and Hashem. A person can think that it is due to his own actions that he succeeds - כֹּחִי֙ וְעֹ֣צֶם יָדִ֔י עָ֥שָׂה לִ֖י אֶת־הַחַ֥יִל הַזֶּֽה. This person may not use his head to realize that the strength and success of his arm is only due to the assistance of Hashem. If he disconnects the two aspects and relies entirely on his own strength and does not recognize Hashem's involvement, he does not belong on the battlefield and may cause others to be hurt as well.

[R' Frand said parenthetically that no greater example are the events of 10/7/23. Israel had a billion dollar defense system in place to monitor Gaza and the system simply failed because Hashem wanted it to].

R' Frand also said a vort about Elul and why it is an apt time for Teshuva and not merely the Teshuva season. He noted that Moshe went up on Har Sinai three times. The first time was to receive the Luchos when he went up on Shavuous and came down on the 17th of Tammuz. Moshe then went back up a second time on the 18th of Tammuz and came down on the 29th of Av at which time the Jews were told that they had been forgiven. Rashi states that on that date, Hashem told Moshe to create the second set of Luchos and all had been forgiven. Moshe then went back up on the 1st of Elul and came down with the second Luchos on Yom Kippur.

But why did Moshe need to go up a third time if Hashem had already told him when he came down the second time that the Jews had been forgiven? Rashi explains that the forgiveness received after the second trip on the mountain was akin to someone saying - "I forgive you" but the prior relationship has not been restored. On the other hand, when Moshe came down the third time, it was a forgiveness with an element of love as Hashem was happy with the Jews and wanted to renew the connection.

R' Frand quoted R' Emmanuel Bernstein who states that the Avodah of Elul is to get back to the close connection that we had with Hashem last Tishrei, but had dissipated throughout the year.

R' Frand closed the vort by asking why we recite לְדָוִ֨ד ׀ יְהֹוָ֤ה ׀ אוֹרִ֣י during Elul and through the end of Sukkos. He recognized the limud that  אוֹרִ֣י is Rosh Hashanah and יִשְׁעִי is Yom Kippur and that there is a reference to Sukkos. But R' Frand said that there is more to it. If you examine the Mizmor, there are many aspects of wanting to reconnect with Hashem, such as אַחַ֤ת ׀ שָׁאַ֣לְתִּי מֵאֵת־יְהֹוָה֮ אוֹתָ֢הּ אֲבַ֫קֵּ֥שׁ שִׁבְתִּ֣י בְּבֵית־יְ֭הֹוָה כׇּל־יְמֵ֣י חַיַּ֑י לַחֲז֥וֹת בְּנֹעַם־יְ֝הֹוָ֗ה וּלְבַקֵּ֥ר בְּהֵֽיכָלֽוֹ. Similarly, we state וְאֶזְבְּחָ֣ה בְ֭אׇהֳלוֹ זִבְחֵ֣י תְרוּעָ֑ה אָשִׁ֥ירָה וַ֝אֲזַמְּרָ֗ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה. These are expressions of wanting to reconnect with Hashem which is the Avodah of Elul.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshios Matos-Maasei

Although there are no live Rabbi Frand shiurim on the Parsha until Elul,  R' Frand has been posting a pre-recorded Parsha vort on OU Torah. This week's vort can be found at outorah.org/p/258690 and I have attempted to reproduce the vort to the best of my ability in this post. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to the maggid shiur.

In Parshas Matos, the Torah describes Moshe's interactions with Hashem and the Jews in connection with the conquering of the land of Midian. In Bamidbar 31:2 Hashem tells Moshe  נְקֹ֗ם נִקְמַת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מֵאֵ֖ת הַמִּדְיָנִ֑ים אַחַ֖ר תֵּֽאָסֵ֥ף אֶל־עַמֶּֽיךָ - he should avenge the Midianites actions and then he will pass away. Moshe immediately assembles an army of 12,000, led by Pinchas (Bamdibar 31:6). But why are they led by Pinchas and not Elazar the Kohain Gadol?

Rashi explains that Pinchas was selected because he had began the Mitzva by killing Kozbi along with two other reasons, including that he was the Kohain Mashuach Milchama. In Parshas Ki Seitzei there is a discussion of this role, by which he is part chaplain and part motivator. This Kohain would tell the people what the exemptions are from battle and then would inspire those who went out to fight.

R' Frand noted that there is a chaplain in modern armies, but this role was more in line with Dwight D Eisenhower in WWII as well as Winston Churchill - a motivator.

R' Frand quoted R' Moshe Sternbuch who explains that the Halacha is that when a Kohain Gadol dies, his son succeeds him. R' Frand said that this Halacha applies in modern circumstances when a Rebbi or Rav dies, the son (if he is worthy) takes the position. However, R' Sternbuch noted that the family succession rule does not apply to the Kohain Mashuach Milchama. The reason is that the Mashuach Milchama needs a combination of talents that not everyone has - he needs to be able to speak and inspire and calm people's nerves. He also has to know what happens in battle and must uses his talents appropriately and that was why the job does not automatically pass down in the family.

Pinchas had these talents - he had knowledge and constitution as he speared Zimri and Kozbi. He was not afraid of war, but he also had the ability to speak and inspire. He had the combination of compassion and inspiration - he could comfort and motivate and that was why he was chosen.

R' Frand told a story about a Rav in Europe who passed away and there was a desire to pass the job to someone else rather than the son. They came to the Chofetz Chaim to rule and he said to pass the job to someone else. He explained that previously, the job of the Rav was to give Derashos on Shabbos HaGadol and Shuva and to pasken. But now (when the ruling came) there were forces at play which were trying to pull away Jews from Torah life. Its not enough to have a Rav to give Derashos - he needs to be able to speak and inspire and to keep the youth in line and that was a much more taxing job. Although the Rav's son was a fine Rabbi, he did not have these talents of public speaking and inspiration and in those times it was more important.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshios Chukas-Balak

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parshios this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Bamidbar 21:4-5, the Torah writes that when the Jews were traveling to encircle the land of Edom "וַתִּקְצַ֥ר נֶֽפֶשׁ־הָעָ֖ם בַּדָּֽרֶךְ." The Torah then explains what the complaint was, stating "לָמָ֤ה הֶֽעֱלִיתֻ֨נוּ֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם לָמ֖וּת בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר כִּ֣י אֵ֥ין לֶ֨חֶם֙ וְאֵ֣ין מַ֔יִם וְנַפְשֵׁ֣נוּ קָ֔צָה בַּלֶּ֖חֶם הַקְּלֹקֵֽל - the Jews were complaining again about the Manna.

R' Frand then asked - why was this a constant complaint? They had just complained about the Manna in Parshas Behaalosecha, so why was this brought up again? In truth, there is a 38 year gap between the Parshios, but it is an indicia that the Jews were constantly complaining about the Manna.

The Torah then writes in Bamidbar 21:7 that Hashem sent the snakes to attack those who complained. After the people cried out for help, Hashem told Moshe to make an image of a snake for the people to look at and that if they did, they would be healed.

R' Frand quoted R' Bukspan of Florida who explained why the Jews complained about the Manna and why the punishment involved snakes. He explained that when Adam and Chava sinned because of the snake, Hashem punished everyone. Adam was punished in that he had to sweat to make a living and Chava had the pains of childbirth. The snake was punished that it had to eat the dirt. But why is this a punishment? The snake has all the food that he could want! R' Frand answered in the name of the Sfas Emes while on the surface, this appears to be a blessing, it was truly a punishment. Hashem in effect said to the snake - I don't want to see you ever again. You can eat eat all the dirt you want, just don't come back to me.

R' Frand explained that it was for this reason that the snake was chosen as the method of punishment. Hashem was saying to the Jews - you have five or six kids at home and you are worrying about how you will feed them. The Manna will be there for you! But the Jews were tired of going out every day for food - they wanted to be like the snake. Hashem then said - if you don't want to depend on Me on a daily basis for food and you want to be like the snake, then I will send the snakes after you.

R' Frand concluded the vort by quoting the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah which states that the cure for the plague of snakes was more than just looking at a copper snake. It was looking at a snake which was raised up on a pole. Hashem was thus hinting to the Jews - if you look up and recognize that it all comes from Me, then you will be saved. Because you need to have a relationship with Me.

R' Frand also said a vort on Parshas Balak. After Bilaam was hired to curse the Jews, he was directed by Hashem to turn down Balak's request on numerous occasions. But in Bamidbar 22:20, Hashem tells him  אִם־לִקְרֹ֤א לְךָ֙ בָּ֣אוּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים ק֖וּם לֵ֣ךְ אִתָּ֑ם. The obvious question is - what changed? Rashi explains that the reason for the "change of heart" is that Bilaam was instructed that if the people came to him and offered money, he should go. But why?

R' Frand answered by quoting R' Schwalb who discussed what happened when Communism came to Germany. Some people were swept up by the concept - as it was not right that some people have enough money for private jets while others took the bus. But while the concept is inviting, as Margaret Thatcher once said - socialism is great until you run out of other people's money. 

R' Schwalb pointed out that the originators of Communism were "L'Shma." They were not doing things for Heaven, but their intention was to make a better world. And when a person does something for a higher purpose, it attracts others. But we saw in Communism that it collapsed when it was exposed that the leaders were eating caviar and salting away their money in Swiss bank accounts. This is why Bilaam was allowed to go with them if he was getting paid - because it was not for altruistic reasons, it was for the money and he would not succeed.

R' Frand closed by quoting Bilaam's words in Bamidbar 23:9 - הֶן־עָם֙ לְבָדָ֣ד יִשְׁכֹּ֔ן - the Jews are a nation on their own and as the Gemara says in Sotah - the only One that we can rely on is Hashem. This was seen in the trends in the elections in New York this week, as well as how a Congressman (Dan Goldman) was told that he was not welcome in a coffee shop because he supports Israel and even in the words of the Vice President that Israel needs to realize that the US is the only friend they have. But that's not correct as we are meant to be on our own and to recognize that its all from Hashem.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Korach

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand first quoted Rashi who states that this Parsha is very well explained. The Pri Megadim clarifies that this is due to the nature of the subject matter. Prior to Sukkos would not be an opportune time for a shiur on Pesach. But due to the subject matter of Machlokes, it is always a good time for a discussion, summer, spring, winter or fall.

R' Frand also said a vort related to the curious "minhag" that when a Chosson attempts to speak at his Tish, the friends always cut him off. The Belzer Rebbi states that this is a lesson to the Chosson from this week's parsha that "you don't always need to have the last word" and right before his wedding is the best time to learn it.

The third thought that R' Frand said was more substantive and it related to the first words of the Parsha in Bamidbar 16:1 "וַיִּקַּ֣ח קֹ֔רַח." Rashi asks what did Korach take? The entire Parsha is devoid of reference to Korach taking anything! 

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 109 states that Korach got a bad deal. But again, what is the bad deal? If a person buys a car and its a lemon, that's a bad deal. But what did he acquire.

R' Frand quoted the Sefer Be'er Yosef which cites Rashi who asks - Korach was a smart man, why did he chase this. R' Frand said parenthetically that we can see Korach was smart as he chose this point to challenge Moshe. Korach's issues with Moshe had certainly been percolating for a while. But he waited until Moshe's stature in the opinion polls was at its low point as Moshe had just told the Jews that they would not be entering the land of Israel for another forty years.

But this was certainly a bad deal as he had no better than a 1:250 chance in succeeding in his challenge. So why did he pursue it? Because he saw in the future that he would have Shmuel as a descendant and that 24 Mishmaros of his descendants would have prophecy. Based on this view of himself, he thought he was on par with Moshe.

But according to the Sefer Zayis Ra'anan which was quoted in the Be'er Yosef, Korach was mislead because he did not see the chicken and the egg. He gave an example of the Bechorim who have inherent Kedusha. The reason for their special status is because they had caused a great Kiddush Hashem in that Hashem had separated between the Bechorim of Egypt and the Jewish Bechorim. They were living examples of Hashem's ability to deliver a specific punishment to one set of people while sparing another.

The Sefer Zayis Ra'anan states that similarly Korach was Zoche to have a Shmuel and the prophets who followed him, because he unwittingly created a Kiddush Hashem of great proportions. He challenged Moshe and Aharon publicly and Hashem made a great miracle. His role in causing this Kiddush Hashem was certainly not intentional, but he was rewarded with Shmuel and his progeny, simply because he engendered a Kiddush Hashem.

Based on this, the Be'er Yosef explains what the bad deal was that Korach selected. Because would a person rather have himself and his family swallowed up by the ground in exchange for being the forefather of Shmuel HaNavi? No, that was a bad deal, because his public death in an unnatural manner was not worth having a descendant like Shmuel.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!